Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 22STCV09412, Date: 2023-08-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV09412    Hearing Date: August 28, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

TANYA MAIDA, 

Plaintiff(s), 

vs. 

 

TRADER JOE’S COMPANY, INC., ET AL., 

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.: 22STCV09412 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER FINDING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE MOOT 

 

Dept. 31 

1:30 p.m.  

August 28, 2023 

 

1. Motion to Compel Compliance 

Plaintiff Tanya Maida (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Trader Joe’s Company, Inc. (“Defendant’) for damages arising from an incident involving a metal dumpster door swinging open into Plaintiff, thereby causing injury.   

As a result of the incident, Plaintiff claims injuries to her ankle, neck, and low back. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident on April 22, 2011, wherein she sustained injuries to her neck and low back, and was represented by Levitt & Leichenger. Accordingly, Defendant served Levitt & Leichenger with a deposition subpoena for production of business records to obtain no-privileged records related to the April 22, 2011 automobile accident. At the time of filing, Levitt & Leichenger did not object to Defendant’s subpoena, no motion to quash was filed, and Levitt & Leichenger did not respond or produce any documents in compliance with the subpoena for records.  

However, four days after the filing of the instant motion, Defendant provides that Levitt & Leichenger responded and provided records on July 17, 2023. Therefore, Defendant’s motion to compel compliance is now moot. 

 

2. Sanctions 

Defendant requests monetary sanctions against Levitt & Leichenger in the amount of $1,350, contending Levitt & Leichenger’s failure to comply with a document production subpoena was in bad-faith. Defendant cites to Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1342. However, although Levitt & Leichenger did not timely serve responses to Defendant’s subpoena for document production, Defendant received responsive documents. Aside from lateness, there is no evidence of bad faith. Defendant further cites to CCP § 2023.010(d). However, CCP § 2023.020 provides that the prerequisites to impose a discovery sanction is not only a failure to comply, but that the failure must be willful. (R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (App. 2 Dist. 1999) 89 Cal.Rptr.2d 353.) There is insufficient evidence of either bad faith or willfulness. Therefore, the Court declines to award sanctions, especially as Defendant now has the records it seeks.  

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.   

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

  • Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. 

  • If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept31@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿ The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.¿¿ 

  • Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿ You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.¿¿ 

  • If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.¿ 

 

Dated this 25th day of August 2023 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court